5 ms·

It feels like every pick of this administration is just someone who has a motivation for corruption.

by duxup 2y ago

nine_zeros 2y ago
[flagged]
- danaris 2y ago
  I mean, genuinely, the problem here is not that Trump is a convicted criminal. There are many people who are "convicted felons" who are far more ethical, intelligent, and possessed of better leadership qualities than he is. In particular, a) anyone convicted of nonviolent drug offenses should not be considered suspect in anything like the same way, and b) more generally, if you base your determinations of people on what's legal, you put yourself at the mercy of whatever the current government decides is acceptable. This government should make very clear why that is not the best idea in the world. No; the problem with Trump is the specific types of laws he broke. He broke laws around honesty, fair dealing, obstruction of justice, and, of course, the integrity of elections and our democratic process. He is, very plainly, opposed to democracy and the rule of law, preferring to replace it with cronyism and nepotism. That's why he's bad for the country, not simply "because he's a convicted criminal."
  - duxup 2y ago
    I think when people mention Trump and felon and other character issues, rapist, and so on ... it's really a reference to all of them adding up to who he is. Less so a commentary on his list of problems.
    - skeeter2020 2y ago
      I agree. If you could somehow describe him to a 5-yr-old (without psychologically scaring them) they would accurately sum up the zeitgeist as "he's a bad person".
  - a4isms 2y ago
    I suggest the simplest explanation of how Trump is different from other felons is right there in Wilhoit's observation on conservatism: "In-groups who are protected by the law, but not bound by it, alongside out-groups who are bound by the law, but not protected by it." He may have been convicted, but he faced no consequences. He was not bound by the law, so not only did his convictions and investigations not deter him, the lack of consequences emboldened him.
    - FireBeyond 2y ago
      I mean, Florida, who does not allow convicted felons to vote, allowed him to vote by saying "well, he's been convicted but not sentenced or completed his sentence so he's not fullllly convicted yet". This rationale doesn't apply to any other person in a similar state in Florida, it was just for Trump.
  - amelius 2y ago
    > There are many people who (...) True, but we're talking about expectations here.
    - danaris 2y ago
      ...and? I'm sorry, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying it's normal or acceptable to have your expectations be that a "convicted criminal" is automatically a bad person? If so, then particularly given the large and very-well-documented racial biases in arrest, prosecution, and conviction for crimes here in the US, perhaps you should consider adjusting those expectations? If not, then please actually say what you mean clearly.
      - amelius 2y ago
        I don't know why you're attacking me, since I just responded to: > Seriously, what does one really expect from an unethical convicted criminal? and your subsequent comment on that.
      - hackyhacky 2y ago
        > Are you saying it's normal or acceptable to have your expectations be that a "convicted criminal" is automatically a bad person? I believe what the parent comment is trying to say is: someone who committed crimes in the past has evinced a lack of respect for the law, and is therefore more likely to commit crimes in the future than someone with a history of law-abiding. "Bad person" is a value judgement, which is besides the point.
  - nine_zeros 2y ago
    > I mean, genuinely, the problem here is not that Trump is a convicted criminal. There are many people who are "convicted felons" who are far more ethical, intelligent, and possessed of better leadership qualities than he is. Convicted criminal + blatant lies = disregard for society, disregard for people, disregard for rules/norms/laws. It all adds up to who he is and what he values and represents. NOBODY should be surprised at this administration's disregard for society. You should be actually surprised if he does anything good/lawful.
  - joshuanapoli 2y ago
    Yeah, there's some sense to the idea that one ideal kind of lawmaker is someone who has broken the laws but still remains a good person doing good things. I don't personally think that's the case with Trump, but apparently a lot of other people do.
  - troyvit 2y ago
    That's an important distinction. Case in point: https://sandersinstitute.org/event/bernie-sanders-arrest-at-chicago-civil-rights-protest https://sandersinstitute.org/event/bernie-sanders-arrest-at-... Convicted of resisting arrest.
  - wat10000 2y ago
    I'm generally in favor of giving people a chance and not just judging them based on the law regardless of morality. But there's only one POTUS. There are multiple people out there who could do a decent job of being POTUS. Many of them are not convicted felons. We wouldn't lose much if we filtered out the entire convicted-felon category from this particular job.
    - danaris 2y ago
      Consider the situation where Trump is President, and someone is running against him. He gets the police to arrest this opposition candidate, let's say for marijuana possession with the intent to sell (a felony), and with procedural chicanery ensures that the court trying the case is run by a Trump-appointed judge. The opposition candidate is convicted of this charge. Under your suggestion, they would then become ineligible to be elected. It gets even worse if the corrupt President has a compliant Congress (which it seemed like he did for a little while, but that's less sure now). If he can ram through a new law making "criticizing the sitting President" a felony, then basically anyone who would oppose him and his regime would clearly be guilty. In general, the sitting government decides what is a crime and what is not. If you make a law that says that those convicted of crimes cannot run for public office—either "any public office" or "only this specific public office"—then the sitting government, if it is seeking to act in its own interests rather than those of the people, has a perverse incentive to preferentially criminalize things that those who disagree with them are more likely to do, and to encourage (or coerce) bias in policing and trials to ensure conviction.
      - wat10000 2y ago
        I did not suggest making felons ineligible for office. I'm supporting the idea that it would generally be OK for voters to reject a convicted felon candidate on the basis that they are a convicted criminal, without thinking too hard about what crime they were convicted of. I don't expect that to apply in an environment where the things you describe happen, but it would apply perfectly fine now.
- _verandaguy 2y ago
  I think for many of us saying this out loud (or typing it out on sites like this) is a coping mechanism. During Trump 1, there were some adults in the room -- congress seemed to be less complacent, the cabinet appointees had more independent (and more pragmatic) judgement, and the scale of purges across the government felt like nothing compared to what's currently going on. There's none of that now. Congress is complacent and arguably complicit in an ongoing constitutional crisis, the admin is just breaking a number of laws without even putting in the work to have plausible deniability, and with every passing day the corruption's growing to levels that many of us who've been born and raised in the modern economic west just haven't seen in a few generations.
  - skeeter2020 2y ago
    Even if I don't particularly like the individuals, it did feel like some people involved felt compelled to be there, even if they didn't really want to be... Rex Tillerson comes to mind. I can't imagine Trump's moral character sat well with a literal boy scout. John Kelly was another no-nonsense member who seemed steady & driven by a motivation that, agree with or not, was defensible vs. the current batch's motivations. Surprise - he didn't last long either. If there are anyone on the (currently) winning side in this Congress who aren't a bunch of greedy, self-serving boot lickers they better step up soon. I can't imagine someone like John McCain would remain silent in this environment. Best case scenario: history will forget most of these assholes; if not, it will not be kind.
    - mathgradthrow 2y ago
      if you have any scruples and a brain, you'll shut up until you have a chance to obstruct something really important. Its easy to replace you if you vocally oppose trump.
      - gnarlouse 2y ago
        You gotta hope.
      - ffsm8 2y ago
- piokoch 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - miltonlost 2y ago
    > Liberals were promoting people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who has extreme views, they were "cancelling" anyone who dares to think differently about anything: from climate to abortion or covid vaccines. That you think we should not be "cancelling" anti-vaxxers and your implication of we should listen to anti-vaxxers (because they "dare to think differently", as if this is about their dyed hair color or something) says a lot about you. And that you use "canceling" in quotes because you can't point to a real thing "liberals" did. > As a result they kicked off from public discourse huge groups of electorate, polarizing society. OHHHHH, the liberals are the one who polarized society? Not Trump from the start saying these people are my enemies? Your right-wing bias is showing > There were topics that you just could not discussed, twitter (pre Musk) was looking to it, same Facebook or Youtube (still, good luck having a monetized film with the forbidden word like Gaza Strip), similarly mainstream media. And there are now topics that can't be discussed on Twitter (post-Musk) like the word "cisgender". And Facebook and Youtube had TONS of anti-vax misinformation, anti-abortion groups, and general right-wing algorithmic boosting. That maybe "some" topics aren't allowed then but a ton of others still are is you trying to pick one spoon out of a pile of knives and saying its full of spoons. What other topics could not be discussed? The value of white supremacy? How homosexuality is a choice? That the Jews run the world? Be specific please.
    - skeeter2020 2y ago
      I don't agree with or support the overall position of the GP, but feel the parts their argument you attack are not the important parts. The Dems most certainly did sabotage their own campaign. Incredibly weak leaders and they kept telling people who are really hurting and falling farther behind that "everything's great; the last 4 years have improved dramatically!" when it just wasn't the case for the exact same people Trump told he would make everything so much better. He lied, won't help them and doesn't give a shit about the vast majority of citizens, but he told them exactly what they wanted to hear. The Democrats were incredibly tone-deaf, and massively discounted 1. how many people were mad and 2. how many were willing to plug their noses and vote for Trump.
- olcragg 2y ago
  [dead]
- wodenokoto 2y ago
  > Seriously, what does one really expect from an unethical convicted criminal? I expected a repeat of his first term. Which honestly was quite uneventful. This is not.
  - accrual 2y ago
    Things felt pretty tame by the end of the first term, almost like the structure of the existing system kept things at bay. It feels very much so like influence from abroad is heavily affecting the current course.
    - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
      Is that a new feeling? I figure the people who want the US to withdraw from the global stage have been working on Trump ever since 1987 when he paid for that full page pro-tariff ad in the New York Times. Power hungry maniacs are a dime a dozen, but ones that are also hell bent on committing economic suicide are a scarce resource and need to be nurtured with care if you want them to actually do it. It's what I'd do if the US was bullying me around. It's a well tested play (refined during the US interventions in South America in the 70's and 80's).
      - xlinux 2y ago
        "ever since 1987 when he paid for that full page pro-tariff ad in the New York Times." I didn't know this. So New York Times had no issue publishing lies for money. Everything is rotten these days
        __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
        Yeah, here it is: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-foreign-policy-ad/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-foreign-policy-ad/ A headline from the times during that same year: TRUMP GIVES A VAGUE HINT OF CANDIDACY (https://archive.is/xF2pW https://archive.is/xF2pW) As much as I dislike advertising in general, and specifically the opinions in that ad, I think that whether the New York Times was willing to publish it is not the important detail here. This was at a time when the US and China were working together to keep the USSR in check while at the same time the US was sending weapons to Taiwan so that they could be used to keep China in check. So imagine being China in 1991. The USSR has just fallen, so they're no longer a threat, but US-sold weapons are still being pointed at you from Taiwan. You'd want the US to leave you alone and stop arming your enemies. And here's this candidate who wants the US to step off the world stage and focus instead on what it can build alone at home. It seems pretty likely that they'd be in favor of getting Trump elected. Whether they ultimately did is an open question, but if so then it's not shame on the New York Times, but shame on us for not better protecting ourselves against foreign interference.
- pjmlp 2y ago
  A dictorship, unfortunately unlike many other countries this one not only is bad for its citizens, it also has a major impact on the planet. Anyone that expects this will only last four years hasn't been paying attention on history books.
  - diggan 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - HenryBemis 2y ago
    But but but.. sir.. he went to Joe Rogan.. he had a live chat with Musk and 350m live watchers (I think _that_ was the day that Trump decided to make Musk his wing-man.. an audience of 350m live watchers is a staggering number!) Keeping it impersonal (and only understanding/analyzing "how" the elections were won/lost), I think that "Trump didn't win". Instead "Democrats lost", took a risky bet and to quote the meme "the risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math". [0] [0]: https://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/963/073/e2d.jpg https://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/963/073/e2... EDIT: I think it was Bill Burr that said on his (latest) SNL monologue "you would think that after the assassination attempt they would just give it to him" (because yes, that was a critical security failure, and so badly designed (the "security" of the event") that one could easily be tricked into thinking that it was purposeful)(a proper Hanlon's razor)
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    Yea, it's not like the people who voted for (or accept) this are just going to vanish in 4 years. This is all happening because a significant number of people affirmatively vote for this to happen, plus a similar-sized number of people who don't vote, and are therefore indicating they are OK with whatever happens. This roughly 66% of eligible voters are still going to be here in 4 years.
    - amelius 2y ago
      It's very easy to go from democracy to dictatorship, while the other way around is a lot harder. Dictatorship is self-sustaining, while democracy needs work to keep alive.
enlightenedfool 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- beardedwizard 2y ago
  Do you feel better about naked self interest and blatant corruption after you say that? Does it make it ok because you try to equivocate? Is it so hard to just say "corruption is bad all the time and we should not tolerate it from anyone" - it is not a controversial position at all.
- croissants 2y ago
  I chalk that up as lame but kind of inevitable mild corruption that doesn't really go anywhere -- Hunter seems more like an embarrassing addict child that a caring parent has no choice but to put up with than somebody who can truly peddle influence over his father -- and feel that this administration is a vast difference in degree of corruption. Degrees matter!
- matwood 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - enlightenedfool 2y ago
    Nothing that Trump or Elon are doing is corruption. Money getting funneled through shell companies to Bidens’ is corruption. Your liberal bias is strong enough to not even realize that for 4 years. And the massive weaponization of government against opponents is the worst.
    - beardedwizard 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - 2y ago
belter 2y ago
[flagged]
- rchaud 2y ago
  For him this is, if you'll excuse the pun, par for the course.
  - belter 2y ago
    Days in Office 74. Days Spent Golfing 19. Time Spent Golfing 25.68%
    - belter 2y ago
      Corrupt to the bone: "Trump Picks Golf Dinner Over Dignified Transfer of U.S. Troops’ Bodies" - https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-picks-golf-dinner-over-dignified-transfer-of-troops/ https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-picks-golf-dinner-over-d... "Trump won't be present today for the dignified transfer of four U.S. soldiers at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware.Instead, he'll be attending a LIV Golf dinner reception in Florida. The White House and the Defense Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment on which administration officials might be in attendance. The soldiers died during a training exercise in Lithuania. They were honored during a dignified departure ceremony from Lithuania, with Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda and other dignitaries paying tribute. Trump isn't attending dignified transfer of soldiers who died in Lithuania, continued The 3rd Infantry Division identified the soldiers as Sgt. Jose Duenez Jr., 25, of Joliet, Illinois; Sgt. Edvin F. Franco, 25, of Glendale, California; Pfc. Dante D. Taitano, 21, of Dededo, Guam; and Staff Sgt. Troy S. Knutson-Collins, 28, of Battle Creek, Michigan."
hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
It's really shocking to me how quickly and transparently we've hit banana republic levels of corruption, and anyone with any smidgen of power to do anything about it has just rolled over - Profiles in Cowardice describes all of the remaining Republicans in Congress to me (all the courageous ones were either primaried or retired). The examples are all just so disgustingly blatant now, like Eric Adams in NYC, or the founder of Nikola paying millions in bribes (err, sorry, "campaign donations") to get a pardon. Our republic may survive the current administration (not sure, probably give it less than a 50% chance these days), but the facade of our righteousness is gone forever. Trump won the election fair and square, and both the electoral college and the popular vote. People knew exactly what they were getting, and they wanted this.
- belter 2y ago
  You will see next, the removal of the Fed chairman. It is illegal but the Administration will say fight it off in the courts. The Fed chairman is going to make a speech in 10 min, and the US President is currently live on his social platform accusing him of playing Politics. You will then achieve the same level of governance as Türkiye.
  - throwaway5752 2y ago
    I see you as having been downvoted. I have no idea why - it is on topic, and correct. Further, it is not hard to deduce why he will remove Powell, or the impact on America vis a vis the US Dollar. The "Mar a Lago" accord spells this out, with all its faulty logic. They have an agenda that is based on errors, ignorance, and being manipulated by parties that are adversaries to America and democracy. Soon this will be irrecoverable within this generation, at least. People have the mistaken belief that things are bad right now. They can get drastically worse.
    - belter 2y ago
      The Fed charmain just said inflation will pick up. When the economy starts to tank Trump will need somebody to blame, and will blame the high interest rates. The Fed might even have the need to raise rates. [1] "...The relevant legislation holds that a member of the Federal Reserve board may be “removed for cause by the president”. But in this context, courts have interpreted “for cause” to refer to misconduct or impropriety. The president cannot remove the members of the board purely for policy or political reasons. However, Trump could attempt to demote Powell from chair to an ordinary member of the Federal Reserve, and put another candidate in charge. Here, there is less of a legal precedent. Previous presidents have always assumed they did not have the power to do this..." [1] https://theconversation.com/trump-has-threatened-to-fire-the-chair-of-the-us-federal-reserve-that-could-be-bad-news-for-inflation-243260 https://theconversation.com/trump-has-threatened-to-fire-the...
tw04 2y ago
Because it is. Trump is hoping to surround himself with so much corruption that he insulates himself from it. He wants it normalized so people just become numb to it, as with every other messed up thing he does.
- jonny_eh 2y ago
  In other words, he wants everyone else in power to have just much to lose as him if the regime fails, so that they don't turn on him. It works like this in NK and Russia.
  - overfeed 2y ago
    ...or the mob, or street gangs whose initiation rituals usually involves committing a crime to bind you to the group, so you all have something to lose.
- itomato 2y ago
  Hoping to? He has been digging trenches for decades. This is a long time in the making. Florida is Ground Zero, and if you care to look back in time to the late 1990s, there is much to find. Epstein was cooking. Offshore Playboys were living large and public lives and making plans for the future. St. Petersburg, FL in particular holds so many secrets.
- nonrandomstring 2y ago
  > wants it nnormalized A psychological device of "blutkit" (blood cement). For example; young Nazi SS officers were recruited via a ritual attrocity like participation in a massacre. After that "we're all in this together" sealed loyalty through a mix of guilt and fear. The race is on for the Trump administration to elicit the most unforgivable and insane actions in order to sinter those participants into a "death pact". EDIT: spotted recently posted [0] (Also of course C.R Browning's Ordinary Men [1]) both underline the point that you don't need to recruit intrinsically corrupted people - you can make them, [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43583425 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43583425 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_R._Browning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_R._Browning
globnomulous 2y ago
This is how kleptocratic regimes work: in order to steal more effectively, you need to stuff the state full of personnel who ensure theft won't come under scrutiny (or under disapproving scrutiny -- bonus if the the people you hire actually enable it). Even better, hire people who would themselves face prosecution in a normal country, because they'll be beholden to you and too scared to have principles. Edit: once your regime has achieved a certain level of internal cohesiveness and stability, you can begin the next step, which is to turn lower-level state actors against the population. You can do this partly by ordering them to perpetrate violence and outrage. This has a numerous benefits: first, it makes the state actors themselves afraid of the population, partly because they fear accountability, which makes them more inclined to violence and more protective of the regime; second, it stokes anger against them, which validates all the fears I listed under the first point; third, it distracts from the less shocking crimes of the regime (mere theft as opposed to bodily harm or murder -- but eventually that too!); fourth, as the regime gradually ratchets up the violence, the population becomes increasingly fearful and willing to collaborate and thus decreasingly capable of organizing and resisting. Edit 2: I've noticed in my two or three decades of intellectual and political awareness that the right frequently seems to benefit from this kind of compounding effect and stacked benefit. No matter what happens, good or bad, it seems to redound to their benefit. I can't think of any cases where I've felt that the left enjoyed similar structural or inherent political advantages.
- jorblumesea 2y ago
  All indications are that the US is on track to become a Russian style government and political system. Unless the US people halt the decline.
  - Yeul 2y ago
    Technically even Russia has a federal minimum wage, pension system and universal healthcare. They even have laws against child labour. No America goes even lower...
    - globnomulous 2y ago

It feels like every pick of this administration is just someone who has a motivation for corruption.

by duxup 2y ago

It feels like every pick of this administration is just someone who has a motivation for corruption.

nine_zeros 2y ago

[flagged]

danaris 2y ago
I mean, genuinely, the problem here is not that Trump is a convicted criminal. There are many people who are "convicted felons" who are far more ethical, intelligent, and possessed of better leadership qualities than he is. In particular, a) anyone convicted of nonviolent drug offenses should not be considered suspect in anything like the same way, and b) more generally, if you base your determinations of people on what's legal, you put yourself at the mercy of whatever the current government decides is acceptable. This government should make very clear why that is not the best idea in the world. No; the problem with Trump is the specific types of laws he broke. He broke laws around honesty, fair dealing, obstruction of justice, and, of course, the integrity of elections and our democratic process. He is, very plainly, opposed to democracy and the rule of law, preferring to replace it with cronyism and nepotism. That's why he's bad for the country, not simply "because he's a convicted criminal."
- duxup 2y ago
  I think when people mention Trump and felon and other character issues, rapist, and so on ... it's really a reference to all of them adding up to who he is. Less so a commentary on his list of problems.
  - skeeter2020 2y ago
    I agree. If you could somehow describe him to a 5-yr-old (without psychologically scaring them) they would accurately sum up the zeitgeist as "he's a bad person".
- a4isms 2y ago
  I suggest the simplest explanation of how Trump is different from other felons is right there in Wilhoit's observation on conservatism: "In-groups who are protected by the law, but not bound by it, alongside out-groups who are bound by the law, but not protected by it." He may have been convicted, but he faced no consequences. He was not bound by the law, so not only did his convictions and investigations not deter him, the lack of consequences emboldened him.
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    I mean, Florida, who does not allow convicted felons to vote, allowed him to vote by saying "well, he's been convicted but not sentenced or completed his sentence so he's not fullllly convicted yet". This rationale doesn't apply to any other person in a similar state in Florida, it was just for Trump.
- amelius 2y ago
  > There are many people who (...) True, but we're talking about expectations here.
  - danaris 2y ago
    ...and? I'm sorry, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying it's normal or acceptable to have your expectations be that a "convicted criminal" is automatically a bad person? If so, then particularly given the large and very-well-documented racial biases in arrest, prosecution, and conviction for crimes here in the US, perhaps you should consider adjusting those expectations? If not, then please actually say what you mean clearly.
    - amelius 2y ago
      I don't know why you're attacking me, since I just responded to: > Seriously, what does one really expect from an unethical convicted criminal? and your subsequent comment on that.
    - hackyhacky 2y ago
      > Are you saying it's normal or acceptable to have your expectations be that a "convicted criminal" is automatically a bad person? I believe what the parent comment is trying to say is: someone who committed crimes in the past has evinced a lack of respect for the law, and is therefore more likely to commit crimes in the future than someone with a history of law-abiding. "Bad person" is a value judgement, which is besides the point.
- nine_zeros 2y ago
  > I mean, genuinely, the problem here is not that Trump is a convicted criminal. There are many people who are "convicted felons" who are far more ethical, intelligent, and possessed of better leadership qualities than he is. Convicted criminal + blatant lies = disregard for society, disregard for people, disregard for rules/norms/laws. It all adds up to who he is and what he values and represents. NOBODY should be surprised at this administration's disregard for society. You should be actually surprised if he does anything good/lawful.
- joshuanapoli 2y ago
  Yeah, there's some sense to the idea that one ideal kind of lawmaker is someone who has broken the laws but still remains a good person doing good things. I don't personally think that's the case with Trump, but apparently a lot of other people do.
- troyvit 2y ago
  That's an important distinction. Case in point: https://sandersinstitute.org/event/bernie-sanders-arrest-at-chicago-civil-rights-protest https://sandersinstitute.org/event/bernie-sanders-arrest-at-... Convicted of resisting arrest.
- wat10000 2y ago
  I'm generally in favor of giving people a chance and not just judging them based on the law regardless of morality. But there's only one POTUS. There are multiple people out there who could do a decent job of being POTUS. Many of them are not convicted felons. We wouldn't lose much if we filtered out the entire convicted-felon category from this particular job.
  - danaris 2y ago
    Consider the situation where Trump is President, and someone is running against him. He gets the police to arrest this opposition candidate, let's say for marijuana possession with the intent to sell (a felony), and with procedural chicanery ensures that the court trying the case is run by a Trump-appointed judge. The opposition candidate is convicted of this charge. Under your suggestion, they would then become ineligible to be elected. It gets even worse if the corrupt President has a compliant Congress (which it seemed like he did for a little while, but that's less sure now). If he can ram through a new law making "criticizing the sitting President" a felony, then basically anyone who would oppose him and his regime would clearly be guilty. In general, the sitting government decides what is a crime and what is not. If you make a law that says that those convicted of crimes cannot run for public office—either "any public office" or "only this specific public office"—then the sitting government, if it is seeking to act in its own interests rather than those of the people, has a perverse incentive to preferentially criminalize things that those who disagree with them are more likely to do, and to encourage (or coerce) bias in policing and trials to ensure conviction.
    - wat10000 2y ago
      I did not suggest making felons ineligible for office. I'm supporting the idea that it would generally be OK for voters to reject a convicted felon candidate on the basis that they are a convicted criminal, without thinking too hard about what crime they were convicted of. I don't expect that to apply in an environment where the things you describe happen, but it would apply perfectly fine now.
_verandaguy 2y ago
I think for many of us saying this out loud (or typing it out on sites like this) is a coping mechanism. During Trump 1, there were some adults in the room -- congress seemed to be less complacent, the cabinet appointees had more independent (and more pragmatic) judgement, and the scale of purges across the government felt like nothing compared to what's currently going on. There's none of that now. Congress is complacent and arguably complicit in an ongoing constitutional crisis, the admin is just breaking a number of laws without even putting in the work to have plausible deniability, and with every passing day the corruption's growing to levels that many of us who've been born and raised in the modern economic west just haven't seen in a few generations.
- skeeter2020 2y ago
  Even if I don't particularly like the individuals, it did feel like some people involved felt compelled to be there, even if they didn't really want to be... Rex Tillerson comes to mind. I can't imagine Trump's moral character sat well with a literal boy scout. John Kelly was another no-nonsense member who seemed steady & driven by a motivation that, agree with or not, was defensible vs. the current batch's motivations. Surprise - he didn't last long either. If there are anyone on the (currently) winning side in this Congress who aren't a bunch of greedy, self-serving boot lickers they better step up soon. I can't imagine someone like John McCain would remain silent in this environment. Best case scenario: history will forget most of these assholes; if not, it will not be kind.
  - mathgradthrow 2y ago
    if you have any scruples and a brain, you'll shut up until you have a chance to obstruct something really important. Its easy to replace you if you vocally oppose trump.
    - gnarlouse 2y ago
      You gotta hope.
    - ffsm8 2y ago
piokoch 2y ago
[flagged]
- miltonlost 2y ago
  > Liberals were promoting people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who has extreme views, they were "cancelling" anyone who dares to think differently about anything: from climate to abortion or covid vaccines. That you think we should not be "cancelling" anti-vaxxers and your implication of we should listen to anti-vaxxers (because they "dare to think differently", as if this is about their dyed hair color or something) says a lot about you. And that you use "canceling" in quotes because you can't point to a real thing "liberals" did. > As a result they kicked off from public discourse huge groups of electorate, polarizing society. OHHHHH, the liberals are the one who polarized society? Not Trump from the start saying these people are my enemies? Your right-wing bias is showing > There were topics that you just could not discussed, twitter (pre Musk) was looking to it, same Facebook or Youtube (still, good luck having a monetized film with the forbidden word like Gaza Strip), similarly mainstream media. And there are now topics that can't be discussed on Twitter (post-Musk) like the word "cisgender". And Facebook and Youtube had TONS of anti-vax misinformation, anti-abortion groups, and general right-wing algorithmic boosting. That maybe "some" topics aren't allowed then but a ton of others still are is you trying to pick one spoon out of a pile of knives and saying its full of spoons. What other topics could not be discussed? The value of white supremacy? How homosexuality is a choice? That the Jews run the world? Be specific please.
  - skeeter2020 2y ago
    I don't agree with or support the overall position of the GP, but feel the parts their argument you attack are not the important parts. The Dems most certainly did sabotage their own campaign. Incredibly weak leaders and they kept telling people who are really hurting and falling farther behind that "everything's great; the last 4 years have improved dramatically!" when it just wasn't the case for the exact same people Trump told he would make everything so much better. He lied, won't help them and doesn't give a shit about the vast majority of citizens, but he told them exactly what they wanted to hear. The Democrats were incredibly tone-deaf, and massively discounted 1. how many people were mad and 2. how many were willing to plug their noses and vote for Trump.
olcragg 2y ago
[dead]
wodenokoto 2y ago
> Seriously, what does one really expect from an unethical convicted criminal? I expected a repeat of his first term. Which honestly was quite uneventful. This is not.
- accrual 2y ago
  Things felt pretty tame by the end of the first term, almost like the structure of the existing system kept things at bay. It feels very much so like influence from abroad is heavily affecting the current course.
  - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
    Is that a new feeling? I figure the people who want the US to withdraw from the global stage have been working on Trump ever since 1987 when he paid for that full page pro-tariff ad in the New York Times. Power hungry maniacs are a dime a dozen, but ones that are also hell bent on committing economic suicide are a scarce resource and need to be nurtured with care if you want them to actually do it. It's what I'd do if the US was bullying me around. It's a well tested play (refined during the US interventions in South America in the 70's and 80's).
    - xlinux 2y ago
      "ever since 1987 when he paid for that full page pro-tariff ad in the New York Times." I didn't know this. So New York Times had no issue publishing lies for money. Everything is rotten these days
      - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
        Yeah, here it is: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-foreign-policy-ad/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-foreign-policy-ad/ A headline from the times during that same year: TRUMP GIVES A VAGUE HINT OF CANDIDACY (https://archive.is/xF2pW https://archive.is/xF2pW) As much as I dislike advertising in general, and specifically the opinions in that ad, I think that whether the New York Times was willing to publish it is not the important detail here. This was at a time when the US and China were working together to keep the USSR in check while at the same time the US was sending weapons to Taiwan so that they could be used to keep China in check. So imagine being China in 1991. The USSR has just fallen, so they're no longer a threat, but US-sold weapons are still being pointed at you from Taiwan. You'd want the US to leave you alone and stop arming your enemies. And here's this candidate who wants the US to step off the world stage and focus instead on what it can build alone at home. It seems pretty likely that they'd be in favor of getting Trump elected. Whether they ultimately did is an open question, but if so then it's not shame on the New York Times, but shame on us for not better protecting ourselves against foreign interference.
pjmlp 2y ago
A dictorship, unfortunately unlike many other countries this one not only is bad for its citizens, it also has a major impact on the planet. Anyone that expects this will only last four years hasn't been paying attention on history books.
- diggan 2y ago
  [flagged]
- HenryBemis 2y ago
  But but but.. sir.. he went to Joe Rogan.. he had a live chat with Musk and 350m live watchers (I think _that_ was the day that Trump decided to make Musk his wing-man.. an audience of 350m live watchers is a staggering number!) Keeping it impersonal (and only understanding/analyzing "how" the elections were won/lost), I think that "Trump didn't win". Instead "Democrats lost", took a risky bet and to quote the meme "the risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math". [0] [0]: https://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/963/073/e2d.jpg https://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/963/073/e2... EDIT: I think it was Bill Burr that said on his (latest) SNL monologue "you would think that after the assassination attempt they would just give it to him" (because yes, that was a critical security failure, and so badly designed (the "security" of the event") that one could easily be tricked into thinking that it was purposeful)(a proper Hanlon's razor)
- ryandrake 2y ago
  Yea, it's not like the people who voted for (or accept) this are just going to vanish in 4 years. This is all happening because a significant number of people affirmatively vote for this to happen, plus a similar-sized number of people who don't vote, and are therefore indicating they are OK with whatever happens. This roughly 66% of eligible voters are still going to be here in 4 years.
  - amelius 2y ago
    It's very easy to go from democracy to dictatorship, while the other way around is a lot harder. Dictatorship is self-sustaining, while democracy needs work to keep alive.

enlightenedfool 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
beardedwizard 2y ago
Do you feel better about naked self interest and blatant corruption after you say that? Does it make it ok because you try to equivocate? Is it so hard to just say "corruption is bad all the time and we should not tolerate it from anyone" - it is not a controversial position at all.
croissants 2y ago
I chalk that up as lame but kind of inevitable mild corruption that doesn't really go anywhere -- Hunter seems more like an embarrassing addict child that a caring parent has no choice but to put up with than somebody who can truly peddle influence over his father -- and feel that this administration is a vast difference in degree of corruption. Degrees matter!
matwood 2y ago
[flagged]
- enlightenedfool 2y ago
  Nothing that Trump or Elon are doing is corruption. Money getting funneled through shell companies to Bidens’ is corruption. Your liberal bias is strong enough to not even realize that for 4 years. And the massive weaponization of government against opponents is the worst.
  - beardedwizard 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - 2y ago

belter 2y ago

[flagged]

rchaud 2y ago
For him this is, if you'll excuse the pun, par for the course.
- belter 2y ago
  Days in Office 74. Days Spent Golfing 19. Time Spent Golfing 25.68%
  - belter 2y ago
    Corrupt to the bone: "Trump Picks Golf Dinner Over Dignified Transfer of U.S. Troops’ Bodies" - https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-picks-golf-dinner-over-dignified-transfer-of-troops/ https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-picks-golf-dinner-over-d... "Trump won't be present today for the dignified transfer of four U.S. soldiers at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware.Instead, he'll be attending a LIV Golf dinner reception in Florida. The White House and the Defense Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment on which administration officials might be in attendance. The soldiers died during a training exercise in Lithuania. They were honored during a dignified departure ceremony from Lithuania, with Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda and other dignitaries paying tribute. Trump isn't attending dignified transfer of soldiers who died in Lithuania, continued The 3rd Infantry Division identified the soldiers as Sgt. Jose Duenez Jr., 25, of Joliet, Illinois; Sgt. Edvin F. Franco, 25, of Glendale, California; Pfc. Dante D. Taitano, 21, of Dededo, Guam; and Staff Sgt. Troy S. Knutson-Collins, 28, of Battle Creek, Michigan."

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

It's really shocking to me how quickly and transparently we've hit banana republic levels of corruption, and anyone with any smidgen of power to do anything about it has just rolled over - Profiles in Cowardice describes all of the remaining Republicans in Congress to me (all the courageous ones were either primaried or retired). The examples are all just so disgustingly blatant now, like Eric Adams in NYC, or the founder of Nikola paying millions in bribes (err, sorry, "campaign donations") to get a pardon. Our republic may survive the current administration (not sure, probably give it less than a 50% chance these days), but the facade of our righteousness is gone forever. Trump won the election fair and square, and both the electoral college and the popular vote. People knew exactly what they were getting, and they wanted this.

belter 2y ago
You will see next, the removal of the Fed chairman. It is illegal but the Administration will say fight it off in the courts. The Fed chairman is going to make a speech in 10 min, and the US President is currently live on his social platform accusing him of playing Politics. You will then achieve the same level of governance as Türkiye.
- throwaway5752 2y ago
  I see you as having been downvoted. I have no idea why - it is on topic, and correct. Further, it is not hard to deduce why he will remove Powell, or the impact on America vis a vis the US Dollar. The "Mar a Lago" accord spells this out, with all its faulty logic. They have an agenda that is based on errors, ignorance, and being manipulated by parties that are adversaries to America and democracy. Soon this will be irrecoverable within this generation, at least. People have the mistaken belief that things are bad right now. They can get drastically worse.
  - belter 2y ago
    The Fed charmain just said inflation will pick up. When the economy starts to tank Trump will need somebody to blame, and will blame the high interest rates. The Fed might even have the need to raise rates. [1] "...The relevant legislation holds that a member of the Federal Reserve board may be “removed for cause by the president”. But in this context, courts have interpreted “for cause” to refer to misconduct or impropriety. The president cannot remove the members of the board purely for policy or political reasons. However, Trump could attempt to demote Powell from chair to an ordinary member of the Federal Reserve, and put another candidate in charge. Here, there is less of a legal precedent. Previous presidents have always assumed they did not have the power to do this..." [1] https://theconversation.com/trump-has-threatened-to-fire-the-chair-of-the-us-federal-reserve-that-could-be-bad-news-for-inflation-243260 https://theconversation.com/trump-has-threatened-to-fire-the...

tw04 2y ago

Because it is. Trump is hoping to surround himself with so much corruption that he insulates himself from it. He wants it normalized so people just become numb to it, as with every other messed up thing he does.

jonny_eh 2y ago
In other words, he wants everyone else in power to have just much to lose as him if the regime fails, so that they don't turn on him. It works like this in NK and Russia.
- overfeed 2y ago
  ...or the mob, or street gangs whose initiation rituals usually involves committing a crime to bind you to the group, so you all have something to lose.
itomato 2y ago
Hoping to? He has been digging trenches for decades. This is a long time in the making. Florida is Ground Zero, and if you care to look back in time to the late 1990s, there is much to find. Epstein was cooking. Offshore Playboys were living large and public lives and making plans for the future. St. Petersburg, FL in particular holds so many secrets.
nonrandomstring 2y ago
> wants it nnormalized A psychological device of "blutkit" (blood cement). For example; young Nazi SS officers were recruited via a ritual attrocity like participation in a massacre. After that "we're all in this together" sealed loyalty through a mix of guilt and fear. The race is on for the Trump administration to elicit the most unforgivable and insane actions in order to sinter those participants into a "death pact". EDIT: spotted recently posted [0] (Also of course C.R Browning's Ordinary Men [1]) both underline the point that you don't need to recruit intrinsically corrupted people - you can make them, [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43583425 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43583425 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_R._Browning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_R._Browning

globnomulous 2y ago

This is how kleptocratic regimes work: in order to steal more effectively, you need to stuff the state full of personnel who ensure theft won't come under scrutiny (or under disapproving scrutiny -- bonus if the the people you hire actually enable it). Even better, hire people who would themselves face prosecution in a normal country, because they'll be beholden to you and too scared to have principles. Edit: once your regime has achieved a certain level of internal cohesiveness and stability, you can begin the next step, which is to turn lower-level state actors against the population. You can do this partly by ordering them to perpetrate violence and outrage. This has a numerous benefits: first, it makes the state actors themselves afraid of the population, partly because they fear accountability, which makes them more inclined to violence and more protective of the regime; second, it stokes anger against them, which validates all the fears I listed under the first point; third, it distracts from the less shocking crimes of the regime (mere theft as opposed to bodily harm or murder -- but eventually that too!); fourth, as the regime gradually ratchets up the violence, the population becomes increasingly fearful and willing to collaborate and thus decreasingly capable of organizing and resisting. Edit 2: I've noticed in my two or three decades of intellectual and political awareness that the right frequently seems to benefit from this kind of compounding effect and stacked benefit. No matter what happens, good or bad, it seems to redound to their benefit. I can't think of any cases where I've felt that the left enjoyed similar structural or inherent political advantages.

jorblumesea 2y ago
All indications are that the US is on track to become a Russian style government and political system. Unless the US people halt the decline.
- Yeul 2y ago
  Technically even Russia has a federal minimum wage, pension system and universal healthcare. They even have laws against child labour. No America goes even lower...
  - globnomulous 2y ago